I hate these over generalizations supported by random scientific evidence applied globally when it was derived from a questionable study conducted by a grant leech who probably also received federal money to see if pig [censored] resembles the dorsal fin of a gobbie…..
First of all the majority of the fishing world gets the concept of “frontal condition” mixed up with “atmospheric pressure” mixed up with “barometric pressure”…. I would guess that longitude, latitude, and elevation to sea level variations would enormously effect atmospheric pressure but have very little affect on frontal conditions or barometric changes that occur on a random but regular basis in the given region. A simplification of atmospheric pressure, in my way of thinking, is altitude’s affect on a fish’s behavior… you could study the relatively minute changes of atmospheric pressure that occurs at a given altitude (which to science is remarkably stable) and their affect on the fish over an extended period of time but you’d be better off watching pimples dissipate….
Frontal condition essentially describes the leading edge of an air mass moving in a given direction that “alters” the standard atmospheric pressure for the period of time required for the for the front to pass ( back edge of the air mass leaving the region ) but to science is an insignificant shift nearly imperceptible blip in the longer term stable air pressure measurements for that region. Atmospheric pressure relates to the standard pressure exerted at a given altitude… Barometric pressure is the “measure” of the airs pressure on the surface which is also a measure of Atmospheric pressure but more accurately is a measurement of the minute undulations that occur because of changes in the air’s pressure on the surface and to some degree molecular density (the more air molecules present the greater the pressure). Though atmospheric pressure undulates in the general theme of things very little … on a smaller scale barometric pressure undulates a good deal, within a few millibars, with the occurrence or lack of occurrence of the passing of air masses. Here we are essentially separating cloud cover and temperature changes as attributes outside the domain of atmospheric pressure when in reality both can ONLY occur WITH changes in atmospheric pressure because the molecular construct and density of air per cubic inch CHANGES with the presence of heavier or lighter air masses. To separate one from the other is to say your skin condition has relatively nothing to do with blood flow… its true enough unless someone starts laughing and says… WHAT THE HELL IS THE BLOOD FLOW LIKE WHEN THERE IS NO SKIN LMAO. DOH… I’m bleeding everywhere –lol-.. but while the skin is in tact we can continue to comfortably say it has no influence on blood flow per se. So if you’re going to argue that atmospheric pressure has no affect on the fishing but cloud cover does you’ve just contradicted yourself… you can’t have zero change in atmospheric pressure and a mass of cooler or warmer air… can’t happen… barometric pressure is the measurement of the variations occurring when the air masses move… hence it is an extremely important meteorological determinant of day to day weather patterns…
Science is limited by the intellect employing the scientific method… the intellect of the individual recording the results… the intellect of the individual attempting to extrapolate the information in a way it is readable by the general public… and the intellect of the individual reading the information… Science has not been able to measure “comfort” it has only been able to guess what something that it cannot understand “usually” does and “seems” through repeated evaluation to consistently do then labels it “comfort”… the independent variables are enormous and our ability to determine reality is often much less than we’d like to believe.. we have an extraordinary capacity to miss the obvious and complicate the simple… this narrative is an example of it –grin-
Bear in mind that the conclusion derived from observing “usual, repetitive behavior” can be very wrong just as easy as it can be very right. Additionally bear in mind that mutation always deviates from the norm until it becomes the norm and science will call the same behavior mutated or normal depending on the number of times it can reach the same result applying the same principles. Its helped us a bunch over the years but its also lead us down some alleyways that continue to leave me scratching my head…
Stick with the influence of frontal conditions (day to day weather patterns) Seasonal changes another subtle change in air pressure that of course has no affect on the fish and consider barometric pressure an indication of incoming or outgoing frontal conditions…. and go from there… you should also know that the DNR also says that “fishing pressure” does not alter the feeding practices or movement of fish to any measurable degree…. well… in the overall lake ecology that might be true over a 30 year span… but its not at all true in bass fishing in the narrow range we measure… whether they hit our baits or spook at our presence… we know we affect their behavior in a unique way but science would measure every aspect of the fishes response and conclude that we affect them very little… I’d like to drag their logical butt to a tournament lake after 4 days of prefishing has occurred Then they’d see the influence… but they would most assuredly stick to their scientific guns saying our random examples are simply not consistent enough to be considered contradictory to their findings based on consistent and repetitive outcomes after they apply the same principles… there is no worse denial than that found in science and religion lol … maybe politics.
Can someone argue most of what I just said? Of course they can… because the initial statements made were so overwhelmingly general… it is true that atmospheric pressure in a region stays nearly the same …. so it would not in general have a remarkable effect on fish feeding behavior… they still eat… they still move as the traditionally do… they don’t shift forage base… they don’t change predatory habits… they don’t cross land.. the don’t drive boats… but some do breath air lol…… how the hell do we determine how the fish felt? Or what the fish felt? Science can’t communicate with that fish that I’m aware of… I’ve seen no bass language programs … so.. I’d say that conjecture has occurred once again.. when someone says the fish don’t “feel” changes in atmospheric pressure… unless you could talk to an emphysema victim you might assume their steady and persistent wheezing is also not caused or influenced by changes in atmospheric pressure because their routines remain essentially the same their habits don’t change but ask one some time and they’ll tell you that shifts in barometric pressure affect them remarkably… so my opinion is much the same as I originally stated….
I hate these over generalizations supported by random scientific evidence derived from a questionable study conducted by a grant leech type who received federal money to see if pig [censored] resembles the dorsal fin of a gobbie…..
Side note:
Current is pressure that results from a variety of things including gravitational pull, air pressure, and volume of water present… so the air pressure discussion applies much more to a lake without anything but wind current than it would to a flowage… so if the point of the discussion was to say that a) air pressure is a small factor in fishing and b) it doesn’t apply to rivers as much as it does to lakes… my god we took the long way around this….
Thanks, I’m impressed, I think? Now I’m going to have read it at least 9 more times to fathom how a mind like yours functions, thats alot of great info in a short time !!! 